Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T03:49:36.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessing the ecological quality of the Port Blair coast (South Andaman, India) using different suites of benthic biotic indices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2017

Jawed Equbal*
Affiliation:
Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair, Andaman Islands 744112, India
Ganesh Thiruchitrambalam
Affiliation:
Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair, Andaman Islands 744112, India
Raj Kiran Lakra
Affiliation:
Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair, Andaman Islands 744112, India
M. Savurirajan
Affiliation:
Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair, Andaman Islands 744112, India
Kunal Satyam
Affiliation:
Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair, Andaman Islands 744112, India
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: J. Equbal, Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair, Andaman Islands 744112, India email: bangedarkhudi@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Six benthic biotic indices (Shannon–Wiener H′log2, W-statistics, BOPA, BENTIX, AMBI and M-AMBI), based on different ecological principles, were applied to assess the health of variously disturbed tropical intertidal habitats of the Port Blair coastline. A total of 243 replicate samples were collected during the dry period (January, February and March) of 2014–2016. Temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, sediment pH, total organic matter content and texture were analysed. A high mean abundance of opportunistic species (Orbinia sp. 748, Capitella singularis 237 and Armandia sp. 114 ind. m−2) was observed at Phoenix Bay, a gradual decline in diversity at Junglighat and a comparatively high diversity and moderate biomass at Wandoor, reflecting a human pressure gradient. Results showed an annual decline of benthic quality from 2014 to 2016 (good to moderate). Overall BOPA failed to distinguish the magnitude of disturbances, while the rest of the indices classified the benthic quality from undisturbed/high (WD), slightly disturbed/good (JG), to moderately disturbed/moderate to poor (PB). The subjective analysis demonstrated that the urban centres corresponded to disturbed benthic communities of dominant first and second order opportunistic species, while sensitive (EGI) and indifferent (EGII) were associated with the least disturbed or undisturbed site. The study successfully demonstrated the performance of temperate indices in intertidal habitats against the mild organic enrichment. However, for an effective assessment, setting natural reference conditions and sampling in stable dry periods (strong seasonality in tropics) is desirable. In order to test the performance of biotic indices, a long-term monitoring approach of taking abiotic and biotic descriptors into account is recommended.

Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map showing the sampling sites of urban proximity (Phoenix Bay and Junglighat) and reference (Wandoor – Marine Protected area) locations of the Port Blair coast.

Figure 1

Table 1. Details of sampling locations, habitat characteristics and human pressure.

Figure 2

Table 2. Summary of threshold values used to evaluate the ecological quality status in present study.

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Box-whisker plot for environmental parameters during 2014–2016 in dry period (January–March). (A) surface water temperature, (B) salinity, (C) dissolved oxygen, (D) sediment pH, (E) organic matter, (F) sand, (G) silt, (H) clay and (I) mean grain size. Median (horizontal line), 25–75% quartile deviation (box) and Range (whisker). PB, Phoenix Bay; JG, Junglighat; and WD, Wandoor.

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Temporal and spatial variations of the benthic macrofauna. (A) ecological groups (EGI EGII EGIII EGIV EGV), (B) mean individuals abundance m−2, (C) species richness and (D) Shannon-Wiener diversity H′log2 (mean ± SD).

Figure 5

Table 3. Summarized information on dominant taxa (contributing >10 ind. m−2 or 0.5% of the total population) and diversity indices at each location.

Figure 6

Fig. 4. Temporal and spatial variations. (A) polychaete mean abundance (primary axis) and wet weight biomass (secondary axis). (B) evaluation of benthic condition scaled by W-statistics scores (mean ± SD).

Figure 7

Fig. 5. Temporal and spatial distribution of ecological quality status scaled by complementary indices. (A) BOPA, (B) BENTIX, (C) AMBI and (D) M-AMBI scores (mean ± SD).

Figure 8

Fig. 6. CCA plot of scaling type 1 between the dominant species, significant environmental variables (using Monte-Carlo test) and biotic indices as supplementary variables. The angles between variables reflect their correlations (angle near 90 indicates no correlation, near 0 indicates high correlation and near 180 indicates high negative correlation).

Figure 9

Fig. 7. Performances of five benthic biotic indices (in percentage) for assigning the health quality. (A) Samples (N = 81) of all three locations and (B) location-wise PB (N = 27), JG (N = 27) and WD (N = 27). Colour scheme after Dauvin et al. (2012).

Figure 10

Table 4. Degree of similarity/agreement between the indices used for the same ecological quality status by each pair of indices.

Figure 11

Table 5. Ecological Quality Status (EcoQS) of Port Blair coast assessed by selected biotic indices.